The second Part of this Paragraph.
NOw then to come to the particuler Answere of our Apologer to the Card.lls Letter,* he doth for diuers leaues togeather, as it were, dally with him, picking quarrells here and there, vntill he come to the mayne charge of contradiction of himself, to himself, not only in this Letter, but throughout all his workes. And albeit I doubt not, but that the Card.ll or some other by his appointment, will discusse all these matters largly and Page 83 sufficiently: yet for so much, as I haue promised to giue you my iudgment of all, I shall briefly in like māner lay forth what I haue obserued about these pointe•.
XXII. Page 57. of his Apology he writeth thus: That some of such Priests, and Iesuits, as were the greatest traytors, and fomentors of the greatest conspiracyes, against her late Maiesty, gaue vp F. Robert Bellarmyne, for one of their greatest authorities, and Oracles. And for proofe he citeth in the margent Campian and Hart:*See the Conference in the Tower. By which I discouer a greater abuse then I could haue imagined, would euer haue come from a man carefull of his credit: for I haue seene and perused the Conference of M.r D. Iohn Reynolds with M. Iohn Hart in the Tower, vpon the yeare 1583. two yeares after the death of F. Campian, and there it appeareth in∣deed that the said M. Hart alleadgeth diuers tymes the opinions and proofes of F. Robert Bellarmyne, then pu∣blick Reader of Controuersies in Rome, but alwayes about matters of Deuinity and Controuersies, and neuer about Treasons or Conspiracyes. And as for F. Campian, he is neuer read to mention him, eyther in the one or the other. Consider then the deceitfull equiuocation here vsed, that for so much, as M. Hart alleadged F. Robert Bellarmine → sometymes in matters of Controuersie in that conference, therefore both he & F. Campian allead∣ged him for an Author and Oracle of Conspiracy against the Queene. And how can these things be defended with any shew or probability of truth?
XXIII. Page 60. he frameth a great reprehension against the Card.ll for that in his letter he saith, that this Oath is not therfore lawfull, for that it is offered as tem∣pered and modified. Whereupon the Apologer plyeth, and insulteth, as though the Card.ll had reprehended the tē∣perate speech therin vsed, adding, That in Luther and others of the Protestant writers, we mislike their bold & free speaking, as comming from the diuells instinct. Page 84
XXIV. Page 62. the Apologer hauing said with great vehemency of asseueration,
XXV. To the second question may make answere [ 2] euery clause in effect of the Oath it self. As for example the very first:*I A. B. doe truly, and sincerely acknowledge, professe, testify, & declare in my Conscience, that the Pope neither of him∣self, nor by any authority of the Sea or Church of Rome, hath any po∣wer & authority to &c. doth not this include eyther beliefe, or vnbeliefe? Againe: I doe further su eare, that I doe frō my hart abhorre, detest, & abiure, as imp•ous, & here icall, that damnable do∣ctrine, & position, That Princes which be excommunicated, and de∣priued by the Pope, may be deposed &c. Doth not heere the swearer promise, not to belieue that doctrine which he so much detesteth? How thē doth the Apologer so grosly forget, and contradict himself, euen then, when he goeth about to proue contradictions in his Aduersary?
XXVI. It followeth consequently in the Oath: And I doe belieue,*and in Conscience am resolued, That neyther the Pope, nor any person whatsoeuer, hath power to absolue me from this Oath, or any part therof. These wordes are plaine as yow see. And what will the Apologer say heere? Is nothing Page 86 promised in those wordes to be belieued, or not to be belieued?
XXVII. But now we come to the contradictions of Cardinall Bellarmyne, wherof the Apologer taketh occasion to treate, for that the Cardinall affirmeth in one part of his letter, That neyther his Maiesty of England, nor any Prince else, hath cause to feare violence from the Pope; for that it was neuer heard of, from the Churches infancy, vntill this day, that any Pope did commaund,* That any Prince, though an Hereticke, though an Ethnicke, though a Persecutour, should be murthered, or did allow the murther, when it was done by an other.* Which assertion, the Apologer to improue, bringeth in examples first of doctrine, that Bellarmyne himself doth hold,
XXVIII. And so if some Popes haue had iust warres with some Princes, Kinges or Emperours, or haue per∣suaded Page 87 themselues, that they were iust, in respect of some supposed disorders of the said Princes (as here is mentioned the warre, and other hostile proceedings of Pope Gregory the seauenth against the Emperour Henry the fourth) this is not contrary to the saying of Cardinall Bellarmyne,*That no Pope euer commaunded any Prince to be murthered, or allowed therof, after it was done by an other. For as for that which heere is affirmed by the Apo∣loger, That the Pope was inraged at the Emperour Henry the 5.*for giuing buriall to his Fathers dead corps, after the Pope had stirred him vp against his Father, and procured his ruyne, neyther proueth the matter, nor is altogeather true, as heere it is alleadged. Not the first: for this pro∣ueth not, that the Pope eyther commaunded or procured this death, which Bellarmyne denyed. Not the second: for that the two Authours by him cyted in his margent, to wit, Platina and Cuspinian, doe not auerre the same. For in Platina I finde no such thing at all; and Cuspinian his wordes are plaine to the contrary:* That when Henry the Father was dead, and buried in a Mo∣nastery at Liege, his Sonne would not make peace with the Bishop of that place, called*Otbert, except the dead body were pulled out of the graue againe, as it was, and so remayned for fiue yeares.
XXIX. And againe Cuspinian writeth, That the report was, that Gregory the 7. did before his death ab∣solue the Emperour; but that his Sonne Henry the 5. and his followers neuer left to sollicite the succeeding Popes vntill he was excōmunicated againe,* & thereupon had afterward this Christian buriall denyed him. And how then, is all this ascribed to the Pope, which pro∣ceeded from the Some against his Father? Our Apo∣loger saith, That he was sett on by the Pope to rebell against him, but this his witnesses affirme not. For Cuspinian saith that it was, Suasu Marchionis Theobaldi, Be∣rengarij Comitis Noricorum, & Ottonis sibi ex materna s•irpe Page 88 cognati. And in this commonly agree all other Authors, asaVrspergensis, who then liued,bCrantzius,cSigonius,dNauclerus, and others. And why then is this so vniustly layed vpon the Pope? What Author can he bring for it, that auoucheth the same? Why is it couertly cast in, as though this matter apperteyned to Gregory the seauenth, who in his life had warres with Henry the fourth, but yet dyed before him? Heere then nothing is so apparent, as the desire to say much against Popes, with neuer so litle occasion, and lesse proofe. But let vs go forward.
XXX. In the second place he produceth the appro∣bation of the slaughter of the late King of France by Pope Sixtus in his speech in the Consistory: But no record of credit, eyther in Rome or elswhere, can be found to testify, that any such speech euer was had by Pope Sixtus.* And I vnderstand that diuers Cardinalls are yet liuing, who were then present in the first Consi∣story, after that newes arriued, who deny that Sixtus euer vttered any such words, as of the allowance of that horrible fact, though he might, and did highly admire the strange prouidence of God, in chastising by so vnexpected a way, so foule and impious a murther, as that King had committed vpon a Prince, Bishop, and Cardinall (and those neerest of bloud vnto his Maiesty of England) without any forme of iudgment at all. And that a spectacle heerby of Gods Iustice was proposed vnto Princes,* to be moderate in their power, and passions: for that in the midst of his great and Royall army, and corporall guardes, he was strangely slaine by a simple vnarmed man, when nothing was lesse expe∣cted, or feared. Nor can any thing be more improbable or ridiculous to be imagined, then that which is heere affirmed by our Apologer (and yet, he saith, he is sure therof) That this friar, which killed the King, should haue bene canonized for the fact, if some Cardinalls, out of their wisedome, Page 89 had not resisted the same. No such thing being euer so much as imagined, or consulted of, as many doe testify who were then in Rome. So as nothing is more common here, then bold assertions without wittnesses.
XXXI. And the like may be said to his third exam∣ple of the late Queene of England, against whose life (he saith) that so many practises, and attempts were made, and directly i•ioyned to those traytors, by their Confessours, and playnly authorized by the Popes allowance.* So he saith. But if a man would aske him, how he can proue, that those things were so directly inioyned, and plainly authorized, what answere will he make? Yow shall heare it in his owne wordes, for he hath but one: For verification (saith he) there needeth no more proofe, then that neuer Pope, eyther then or since, called any Church-man in question, formedling in those treasonable conspiracyes. And needeth no more (Syr) but this,* to condemne both Confessours and Popes of conspiring the last Queenes death, That no Pope hath called in question, or punished any Cleargy-man for such like at∣tempts? What i• he neuer knew of any such attempt? What if he neuer heard of any Clergy-man to be accused therof, except such as were put to death by the Queene her self, either culpable or not culpable? What if he saw some such ridiculous false deuises, made against some Priests to make their whole company and cause odi∣ous, as iustly discredited with him all their other cla∣mours and calumnious accusations in that behalfe? As that of Squier, induced (as was sayed) by Fa. VValpole in Spaine to poyson the Queenes chayre,* or the Earle of Essex his sadd•e, which was so monstrous a fiction, and so plainly proued for such in forrayne Countryes (and so confessed by the miserable fellow at his death) as tooke all credit from like deuises in these attemptes, of hol∣ding the Queene in perpetuall frightes, to the end, she should neuer attend to the true way of remedy.
XXXII. And with what little care of sincerity. Page 90 or of punctuall truth, all these things are here, and elswhere, cast out at randome, to make a sound and noise in the Readers eares,* appeareth sufficiently in the very next sequent wordes, wherein speaking of Do∣ctor Sanders he saieth: That whosoeuer will looke vpon his Bookes, will fynde them filled with no other Doctrine then this. And will any man thinke it probable or possible that so many bookes as Doctor Sanders hath written, both in Latyn and English, and of so different arguments con∣cerning Religion, haue no other Doctrine in them, but this of killing, and murthering of Princes? And that other assertion also, that ensueth within very few lines after, against Cardinall Bellarmynes whole Workes, That all his large and great Volumes are filled with contradi∣ctions, wherof we are to treat more presently. Now only I doe note the facility, and custome of ouerlashing in this Apologer.
XXXIII. To conclude then about Queene Eli∣zabeth. Albeit Pius Quintus, and some other Popes did excommunicate her, and cut her of from the body of the Catholicke Church by Ecclesiasticall Censures, in regard of her persecuting Catholicke Religion: yet did I neuer know it hitherto proued, that any Pope pro∣cured or consented to any priuate violence against her person: albeit, if the forealledged Statute of the 28. yeare of King Henry the 8. be true, wherin it is de∣termined both by the King himself, his Counsell, and whole Parlament, as by the Archbishop Cranmer, with his Doctors, in his Iudiciall Seat of the Arches, that Lady Elizabeth was not legitimate, nor that her mother was euer King Henryes true wife (which once being true, could neuer afterward by any humane power be made vntrue, or amended to the preiudice of a third, rightly by due succession interessed therin:) & if,* as the whole Parlament testifyed, it should be Against all honour, equity, reason, and good conscience, that the Page 91 said La. Elizabeth, should at any tyme possesse the said Crowne, then the said Popes,* respecting in their said sentence (as it is certayne they did) the actuall right of the Queene of France and Scotland, and of her noble issue his Ma.tie that now is, they might proceed, as they did, against the other, for her remouall (whome they held for an vsurper) in fauour of the true inheritours op∣pressed by her, not only by spirituall, but temporall armes also, as against a publicke Malefactor and intruder contrary to right and conscience. And I cannot see, how this fawning Apologer, can eyther without open vntruth, or manifest iniury to his Maiesty, auerre the contrary. Which being true, doth greatly iustify the endeauours and desires of all good Catholicke people, both at home and abroad against her, their principall meaning being euer knowne to haue bene the deliue∣rance, & preferment of the true Heire, most wrongfully kept out, & iniustly persecuted for righteousnes sake.
XXXIIII. This then being so, and nothing pro∣ued at all against Popes for their murthering attempts against Princes, which Cardinall Bellarmyne denyed: yet this Apologer, as if he had proued much against him, in this point of contradicting himself, he writeth thus: But who can wonder at this contradiction of himself in this point, when his owne great Volumes are so filled with contradictions, which when either he, or any other shall euer be able to reconcile, I will then belieue that he may easily reconcile this impudent strong denyall of his, in his letter, of any Popes medling against Kings. Wherin is to be noted first, that wheras Card.ll← Bellarmine → doth deny any Popes murthering of Princes,* this man cal∣leth it, An impudent strong deniall of any Popes medling against Kings, as though medling, and murthering were all one. Is not this good dealing? Truely if the Card.ll had denyed, that euer any Pope had dealt, or medled against any King, or Prince, vpon any occasion whatsoeuer, it had beene a strong denyall indeed: but for so much, as Page 92 he saith no such thing, I maruaile of the Apologers proceeding in this behalfe, for with the word impu∣dent I will not meddle. But let vs heare him yet further.*
XXXV. And that I may not seeme (saith he) to imitate him, in affirming boldly that, which I no waies can proue, I will therefore send the Reader, to looke for wittnesses of his contradictions in such places here mentioned in his owne booke. Thus he, very confidently, as you see, And verily I cannot but mar∣uaile, that he knowing how many men of learning would looke vpon the places themselues, (for I vnder∣stand now also that the book is out in latyn) would not be ashamed in him self, to suffer their iudgement of him and his doings in this behalfe: albeit he had not respe∣cted the Cardinals answere, which must nedes be with exceeding aduantage against him, such as, in truth, I am ashamed for Countrey sake, that strangers should laugh vs to scorne for such manner of writing. For if I doe vnderstand any thing, and that myne owne eyes, and iudgement doe not deceaue me, this Apologer will remayne vnder, in all & euery one of these oppositions, no one of them being defensible in the nature of a true contradiction,* and consequently Cardinall Bellarmynes great volumes of Controuersies, will not only, not be proued full of Contradictions by this tast here giuen, as is pretended: but will rather be infinitly iustifyed; that in so many great Volumes, this Author hath not bene able to picke out any better contradictions then these. Wherof againe, I must say and auouch, that no one seemeth to me any contradiction at all, if they be well examined.
XXXVI. And though I meane not to discusse them all in this place, nor the greater part of them, they being eleuen in number, as hath bene said, both for breuityes sake, and not to peruent the Cardinalls owne Answere, and satisfaction therin (which I doubt not Page 93 but will be very sufficient, and learned:) yet three or foure I shall touch only, for examples sake, thereby to giue the Reader matter to make coniecture of the rest. This then he beginneth his list of eleuen contradictions against the said Cardinall.
XXXVII. First in his bookes of Iustification (saith he) Bellarmyne affirmeth,* that for the vncertainty of our owne proper righteousnes, and for auoyding of vayne glory, it is most sure and safe, to repose our whole con∣fidence in the alone mercy and goodnes of God:* which proposition of his, is directly contrary to the discourse, & current of all his fiue bookes De Iustificatione, wherin the same is conteyned &c. Of this 〈◊〉 contradiction we haue said somewhat before, to wit, That it is strange, that fiue whole bookes should be brought in, as contradictory to one proposition. For how shall the Reader try the truth of this obiection? Shall he be bound to read all Bellarmynes fiue bookes, to see whether it be true or no? Had it not bene more plaine dealing to haue alleadged some one sentence, or conclusion contradictory to the other? But now shall we shew, that there can be no such contradiction betwixt the sentence of one part of his said Booke of Iustification, & the whole discourse or current of the rest: for that Bellarmyne doth make all the matter cleere, by soyling three seuerall Questions in one Chapter, which is the seauenth of the fifth Booke here cyted.
XXXVIII. The three Questions are these,* about Fiducia, quae in meritis collocari possit, what hope and con∣fidence, may be placed, by a Christian man, in his good workes, and merites. The first Question is, whether good workes, in a Christian man, doe in∣crease hope and confidence by their own nature, and the promise of reward made vnto them? And Bellar∣myne answereth that they doe: and proueth it by many [ 1] places of Scriptures, as that of Toby the 4. where it Page 94 is saied: That almes-deeds shall giue great confidence, and hope to the doers therof in the sight of God.* And Iob sayeth: That he which liueth iustly,*shall haue great confidence, and hope, and shall sleep securely. And S. Paul to Timothy saith: That who∣soeuer shall minister well,*shall haue great confidence, &c. And I omit diuers other plaine places of Scriptures, and Fa∣thers there alleadged by him, which the Reader may there peruse to his comfort, shewing euidently, that the conscience of a vertuous life, and good workes, doth giue great confidence to a Christian man, both while he liueth, and especially when he commeth to dye.[ 2]
XXXIX. The second Question is, whether this being so, a man may place any confidence wittingly in his owne merits, or vertuous life. And it is answered, That he may; so it be with due circumstances of hu∣mility, for auoyding pride, and presumption. For that a man feeling the effect of Gods grace in himself, wher∣by he hath bene directed to liue well, may also hope, that God will crowne his gifts in him, as S. Augu∣stines wordes are. And many examples of Scriptures are alleadged there by Card.ll Bellarmyne of sundry holy Saints, Prophets and Apostles, that vpon iust oc∣casion mentioned their owne merits, as g••ts from God that gaue them hope and confidence of his mercifull re∣ward: and namely that saying of S. Paul: I haue fought a good fight, I haue consummated my course, I haue kept my faith, &c. and then addeth,* that in regard hereof, Reposita est mihi Corona Iustitiae, A crowne of Iustice is laid vp for me, which God the iust Iudge shall restore vnto me.
[ 3] XL. The third Question is (supposing the sore said determinations) what counsaile were to be giuen: Whe∣ther it be good to put confidence in a mans owne me∣rits or no? whereunto Card.ll Bellarmyne answereth, in the words set downe by the Apologer, That for the vncer∣tainty of our owne proper Iustice, and for auoyding the perill of Page 95 vaine glory, the surest way is to repose all our confidence in the only mercy and benignity of God;* from whome and from whose grace our merits proceed. So as albeit Card.ll Bellarmyne doth confesse, that good life, and vertuous acts doe giue hope, and confidence of themselues, and that it is law∣full also by the example of auncient Saints, for good men to comfort themselues with that hope and confidence: yet the surest way is to repose all in the benignity and mercy of almighty God, who giueth all, and is the Au∣thour, as well of the grace, as of the merits, and fruites of good workes that eusue therof. And thus hath Car∣dinall Bellarmyne fully explicated his mynd in this one Chapter, about Confidence in good workes, by soluing the foresaid three different Questions, wherof the one is not contrary to the other, but may all three stand togea∣ther. And how then is it likely, that the foresaid propo∣sition, of reposing our Confidence in the mercy of God, should be contradictory, as this man saith, to the whole discourse and current of all his fiue Bookes of Iustification? Let one only sen∣tence be brought forth, out of all these fiue Bookes that is truly contradictory, and I shall say he hath reason in all the rest of his ouerlashing.
XLI. His second obiected contradiction is as good as this,* which he setteth downe in these wordes.aGod (saieth ← Bellarmine) doth not incline a man to euill, eyther na∣turally or morally: and presently after he affirmeth the contrary, saying:bThat God doth not incline to euill naturally but morally. But this is a plaine fallacy of the Apologer, for that the word morally is taken heere in two different senses, which himself could not but see. For first Card.ll Bellarmyne hauing set downe the former proposition, That God doth not incline a man to euill, eyther Physicè vel Moraliter, naturally or morally, he expoundeth what is vnderstood by ech of these termes, to witt, That Naturall or Phisicall concurrence is, when God con∣curreth to the substance of the action, as mouing or Page 96 impelling a mans will: but Morall concurrence is, when he doth commaund or ordayne any synne to be done. As for example, If a great man should concurre to the murther of another, he may doe it in two manners, eyther Naturally or Phisically, concurring to the action it self of poysoning, strangling, or the like: or Morally, by counselling or commaunding the same to be done, which is properly called Morall concurrence. And by none of these two wayes, God doth concurre to the committing of a synne.
XLII. But there is a third way of concurring,* tear∣med Occasionalicer, occasionally, or by giuing occasion, which improperly also may be called Morall: and this is, When God seeing an euill man euill-disposed, to doe this or that synne, though he doe not concurre therunto by any of the foresaid two wayes, of assisting or com∣maunding the action to be done: yet doth he, by his diuine prouidence, and goodnes, make occasions so to fall our, as this synne, and not that, is committed; and consequently it may be said, That almighty God, without any fault of his, or concurrence in any o• the forsaid two wayes, hath bene the Occasionall cause of this synne.* As for example, we read in Genesis, That when the brethren of Ioseph were obstinately bent to kill him, God, by the pulling by of certayne I smaelites, Merchants of Galaad, gaue occasion of his selling into Egypt; so as he was herby some Occasionall, or Morall cause of this lesser synne, for eschewing the greater, but not in the former sense of Morall concurrence, which includeth also commandement.
XLIII. This Occasionall concurrence then, though in some large sense, it may be called also Morall: yet is it much different from the former, and conse∣quently, the one may be affirmed, and the other denyed, without any contradiction at all. And so this second obseruation against Cardinall Bellarmyne, is wholy im∣pertinent: Page 97 for that Contradictio must be in eodem, respectu eiusdem, which heere is not verifyed. For that when the Cardinall saith in the first place, That God doth not cōcurre Morally to synne, he meaneth by cōmaūding or counselling the same: & whē in the later place, he graū∣teth, That God doth cōcurre somtymes Morally, he mea∣neth by giuing occasiō only for this synne to be cōmit∣ted, rather then that, which is a plaine different thing.
XLIIII. And of the same quality is the third Contradiction,* set downe by the Apologer in these wordes: All the Fathers teach constantly (saith Bellarmyne) that Bishops doe succeed the Apostles, and Priests the seauenty dis∣ciples. And then in another part of his workes, he affir∣meth the contrary: That Bishops doe not properly succeed the Apostles. But whosoeuer shall looke vpon the places here quoted,* shall fynde this to be spoken in diuers senses, to witt, that they succeed them in power of Episcopall Order, and not in power of Iurisdiction, and other extraordinary priuiledges:* so as both those doe well stand togeather. And the like I say of the 4. contradi∣ction obiected, which is, That Iudas did not belieue: & yet in an other place,*That Iudas was iust, and certaynly good: which is no contradiction at all, if we respect the two seuerall tymes, wherof Cardinall Bellarmyne doth speake,* prouing first, out of S. Iohns Ghospell, by the in∣terpretation of S. Hierome, that Iudas at the beginning was good, and did belieue; and then by other words of Christ in the same Euangelist, vttered a good while after the Apostles vocation, That he was a dyuell. and belieued not. And who but our Apologer, would found a cōtradictiō against so learned a man as Bellarmyne is, vpon a ma∣nifest Equiuocation of tymes, wherby he may no lesse argue with Bellarmyne for calling S. Paul an Apostle and persecutour, and Nicolaus an elect of the holy Ghost, and yet an Heretick, for that the one was a Persecutour first, and then an Apostle, and the other first a chosen Page 98 Deacon by the holy Ghost, and afterward an Here∣ticke, possessed by the diuell, as most do hould.
XLV. But I should doe iniury (as before I said) both vnto Cardinall Bellarmyne and my self, if I should goe about to answere these supposed contradictions at length. To the Cardinall, in preuenting him, that will doe it much better. Vnto my self, in spending tyme in a needles labour, for so much as euery one of meane iudgemēt, that will but looke vpon the bookes, and places themselues heere cyted, will discouer the weaknes of these obiections, and that they haue more will, then ability to disgrace Cardinall Bellarmyne.
XLVI. After the obiecting then of these deuised contradictions, our Apologer returneth againe to exagitate yet further the foresaid saying of Bellarmyne,* That neither his Maiesty, nor other King hath need to feare any daunger to his Royall Person, by acknowled∣ging the Popes spirituall authority in his Kingdome, more then other Christians, and Monarches haue done heretofore,
XLVII. And in this enumeration the Apologer bringeth in the example of the Emperour Henry the 4. brought to doe pennance at the Castle of Canusium,* by Pope Gregory the seauenth; as also of the Emperour Fredericke the first, forced by Pope Alexander the third to lie agroofe (as his word is) on his belly, and suffer the other to tread on his necke: Of the Emperour Philip, that is said Page 99 to haue bene slaine by Otho at the Popes motion; and that in respect therof,* the said Otho going to Rome, was made Emperour, though afterward the Pope deposed him also:
XLVIII. All these examples are heaped togeather to make a muster of witnesses, for proofe of the dan∣gers wherin Princes persons are, or may be, by acknowledging the Popes Supreme Authority. But first in perusing of these, I fynde such a heape indeed of exaggerations, additions, wrestings, and other vnsyncere dealings, as would require a particuler Booke to refute them at large. And the very last here mētioned of the present King of France, may shew what credit is to be giuen to all the rest, to witt, That he suffered his Embas∣sadour to be whipped at Rome, & the latin Interpreter turneth it, Vt Legatum suum Romae virgis caesum passus sit: as though he had bene scourged with rodds vpon the bare flesh, or whipped vp and downe Rome; wheras so many hun∣dreds Page 100 being yet aliue that saw that Ceremony (which was no more, but the laying on, or touching of the said Embassadours shoulder with a long white wand vpon his apparell, in token of submitting himself to Ecclesiasticall discipline) it maketh them both to won∣der, and laugh at such monstrous assertions, comming out in print: and with the same estimation of punctuall fidelity doe they measure other things here auouched.
IXL. As for exāple,* that our King Henry the second was whipped vp and downe the Chapter-house, & glad that he could escape so too, for which he cyteth Houeden, and this he in∣sinuateth to be,* by order of the Pope: in respect wher∣of (he saith) the King had iust cause to be afraid. But the Author doth plainly shew the contrary, first setting downe the Charter of the Kings absolution,* where no such pennāce is appointed: & secondly after that againe in relating the voluntary pennances which the King did at the Sepulcher of S. Thomas,* for being some occasiō of his death, doth refute therby this narration, as frau∣dulent, and vnsyncere, that the King was whipped like a school-boy by order of the Pope, as though it had not come frō his owne free choice, and deuotion.
L. That other instance of the Emperour, that lay a∣groofe on his belly (which I suppose he meaneth of Fredericke the first) and suffered Pope Alexander the third to tread on his necke, is a great exaggeratiō, and refuted, as fabu∣lous, by many reasons, and authorityes of Baronius, to whome I remit me. The other in like māner of Celestinus the Pope, that should with his foote beate of the Crown from the head of Henry the sixt Emperour, being only mentioned first of all others by Houeden an English Au∣thour, and from him taken by Ranulph of Chester, no other writer of other nations, eyther present at his Coronation as Godesridus Viterbiensis his Secretary, or others afterward asaPlatina,bNauclerus,cSabellicus,dBlondus,eSigonius,fCrantzius, so much as mentioning the same, though yet Page 101 they write of his Coronation,* maketh it improbable, and no lesse incredible then the former.
LI. That also of the Emperour Philip, affirmed to be slaine by Otho his opposite Emperour, at the incitation of Pope Innocentius the third, is a meere slaūder. For that, according to all histories, not Otho the Emperour, but an other Otho named of VVitilispack▪ a priuate man & one of his owne Court, vpon a priuate grudge, did slay him. And albeit Vrspergensis, that followed the faction of the Emperours against the Popes, doe write, that he had heard related by some the speech here sett downe, that Innocentius should lay, That he would take the Crowne from Philip, or Philip should take the Myter from him: yet he saith expresly, Quod non erat credendum, that it was not to be belieued. And yet is it cyted here, by our Apologer, as an vndoubted truth, vpon the onely authority of Vrspergensis in the margent.
LII. The like may be said of the tale of Frederick the second, attempted to haue bene poysoned, first in Apulia by Pope Innocentius the 4. and afterward effe∣ctuated by one Mansredus, as hyred by the Pope: which is a very tale in deede, and a malicious tale. For that he which shall read all the Authors that write of his life, or death, as1Platina (whome the Protestants hold for free in speaking euill of diuers Popes)2Blondus,3Sabellicus,4Nauclerus,5Crantzius,6Sigonius, & others, shall fynd, that as they write very wicked thinges committed by him in his life: so talking of his first danger in Apulia by gre∣uous sicknes, they make for the most part no mention of poyson at all, and much lesse as procured by the Pope Innocentius, praysed* for a very holy man, and to haue proceded iustly against Fredericke. And secondly for his death, they agree all, that it was not by poyson, but by stopping his breath and stifelyng him in his bed with a pillow, by Mansredus his owne bastard Sonne, to whome he had giuen the Princedome of Tarentum, for feare least Page 102 he should take it from him againe, and bestow it vpon Conradus his other soone. But that the Pope was priuy to this, or hyred him to doe the fact, as our Apologer affirmeth; there is no one word or sillable in these Au∣thors therof.
LIII. But you will say, that he cyteth one Petrus de Vineis in his margent,* and Cuspinian in the life of Fre∣dericke, both which are but one Authour; for that Cuspi∣nian professeth to take what he saith, out of Petrus de Vi∣neis, which Petrus was a seruant to Fredericke, and a pro∣fessed enemy to the Pope, and wrote so partially of this contention, as Pope Innocentius himself wrote Libros Apo∣logeticos (as Blondus recordeth) Apologeticall Bookes to coniute the lyes of this Petrus de Vineis in his life tyme:* And yet yow must note, that he auoucheth not all that our Apologer doth, nor with so much stomacke, or affirmatiue assertion. For thus relateth Cuspinian the matter, out of Petrus de Vineis: Non potuit cauere, &c.
LIV. And albeit, as yow see, he saith more herin against the Pope, then any of the other Authours be∣fore mentioned,* for that he desired to cast some suspi∣tions vpon him: yet doth he it not with that bold as∣seueration, that our Apologer doth, saying: That both his first sicknes was by poyson, of the Popes procurement, and his mur∣thering Page 103 afterward by hyring of Manfredus to poyson him againe: whereas the other ascribeth not the first poysoning to the Pope (if he were poysoned) neyther doth so much as mention the second poyson, but onely the stifeling, and finally leaueth it doubtfull, whether the same pro∣ceeded from the Emperours enemyes, or from the Pope, or from his Sonnes owne ambition, and emulation against his brother.
LV. To the other obiection, or rather calumniation out of Paulus Iouius,* that Alexander the third did write to the Soldane, That if he would liue quietly, he should pro∣cure the murther of the Emperour, sending him his pi∣cture to that end: It is answered, that no such thing is found in that second booke of Iouius, by him here cyted, nor elswhere in that History, so far as by some dili∣gence vsed I can fynde: and it is not likely, it should be found in him, for so much as he beginneth his Hi∣story with matters only of our tyme, some hundreds of yeares after Alexander the third his death.
LVI. So as the only chiefe accusation,* that may seeme to haue some ground against any Pope, in this catalogue, for procuring the death of any Prince, is that which he alleadgeth out of Cuspinian, that Alexander the sixth tooke two hundred thowsand Crownes of Baia∣zetes Emperour of the Turkes, to cause his brother Gemen to be put to death, whome he held captiue at Rome, which he performed (saith our Apologer) by poyson, and had his pay; this I say, hath most apparence: for that some other Authors also besides doe relate the same, affirming, That albeit Prince Gemen the Turke, when he dyed, eyther at Caieta, or Naples, or Capua, (for in this they differ) was not the Popes prisoner, but in the hands of Charles the 8. King of France, who tooke him from Rome with him, when he passed that way with his army: yet that the common fame or rumour was, that Pope Alexander the sixth, had part therin, or, as CuspiniasPage 104 words are, Pontifice non ignorante, the Pope not vnwitting therof.* The reason of which report Guicciardine allead∣geth to be this, to wit, That the euill nature and condi∣tion of Pope Alexander, which was hatefull to all men, made any iniquity to be belieued of him.aOnuphrius Pan∣uinus writeth that he dyed in Capua of a bloudy flux without any mention of poyson. AndbSabellicus before him againe, relateth the matter doubtfully saying; Fue∣runt qui crederent, eum veneno sublatum, &c. There were some that belieued, that he was made away by poyson, and that Alexander the Pope was not ignorant therof; for that he was so alienate in mynde from the French-men, that he was loath they should take any good by him: Thus we see, that the matter is but doubtfully and suspi∣ciously related only, and the French-men being angry for his death, by whome they hoped great matters, might easily brute abroad a false rumour, for their owne defence in that behalfe.
LVII. But as for the two hundred thowsand crownes, though Iouius doe say, that they were offered by Baiazet, as also Vestis inconsutilis Christi, The garment of our Sauiour without seame: yet doth he not say, that they were receaued, eyther the one, or the other. So as whatsoeuer euill is mentioned of any Pope, our Apo∣loger maketh it certayne: and when it is but little, he will inlarge it to make it more: and when it is spoken doubtfully, he will affirme it for a certaynty: wherin he discouereth his owne humour against Popes, and therby limiteth the Readers faith in belieuing him; though we do not take vpon vs to defend the liues and facts of all particuler Popes, but their faith and authority; being forewarned by our Sauiour, that vpon the Chayre of Moyses shall fit Scribes and Pharisyes, whome we must obey, in that they teach, and not follow or imitate, in that they doe. And this shall serue for this point: Card.ll Bellarmyne, I doubt not, will be more large. If a man Page 105 would go about to discredit Kingly authority, by all the misdeeds of particuler Kings that haue byn registred by Historiographers, since the tyme that Popes began, he should fynde, no doubt, aboundant matter, and such, as could not be defended by any probability. And yet doth this preiudicate nothing to Princely power or dig∣nity, and much lesse in our case, where the facts them∣selues obiected, are eyther exaggerated, increased, wre∣sted, or altogeather falsifyed.